High Court dismiss doctor’s appeal in – Safdar v GMC

The Appellant Doctor faced allegations before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) concerning serious misconduct in relation to a patient, anonymised in proceedings as “Ms A” under a strict anonymity order. The Tribunal found that his behaviour breached fundamental standards expected of medical professionals, raising significant concerns about patient safety and public confidence in the profession. The nature of the allegations required the court to balance open justice with the protection of sensitive information, hence the anonymity order restricting disclosure of the complainant’s identity and related details.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant Doctor’s actions were incompatible with continued registration. It determined that lesser sanctions such as suspension or conditions would not adequately protect patients or maintain trust in the profession.

Grounds of appeal

The Appellant Doctor appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the evidence and that erasure was disproportionate. His grounds included:

• Procedural unfairness: He claimed the Tribunal had misapplied evidentiary standards and failed to give proper weight to his submissions.
• Error of law: He argued that the Tribunal had wrongly interpreted the tests for misconduct and impairment.
• Sanction challenge: He contended that erasure was excessive and that suspension or conditions would have sufficed.

Court judgment

The High Court, in Safdar v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 3176 (Admin), rejected these arguments. The Court held that the Tribunal had applied the correct legal principles and that its findings were supported by clear and cogent evidence. The judgment emphasised that the High Court’s role is not to re‑hear the case but to determine whether the Tribunal’s decision was legally sound and rational.

Mrs Justice Steyn DBE noted that the seriousness of the misconduct, combined with the absence of sufficient mitigating factors, justified erasure. The Court reiterated that protecting patients and maintaining public confidence are paramount considerations in fitness to practise cases.

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.